Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application has come for hearing after remand by the Supreme Court. When the writ application was placed for admission on 19th December, 1.991, a Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ-application. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Supreme court and the Supreme Court remanded the matter for re-examination in the light of its decision in the case of babita Prasad and others V/s. State of bihar and others [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 268]. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner prayed for appropriate direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment as assistant teacher in the district of Bhagalpur on the basis of placement of petitioner in the panel prepared for appointment of assistant teacher of Bhagalpur district in the year 1991, which panel has been approved in December 1987. A further relief has also been sought for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the basis of her placement in the panel and also for giving the petitioner all legal and consequential benefits flowing from the said appointment. 3. The facts of the case, set out by the petitioner are as follows : the petitioner after passing the matriculation Examination and Pre-University Examination, took admission in Teachers Training Institute, known as, Elementary Teachers Education College, bhagalpur in 1976-78 Sessions. The petitioner completed her course satisfactorily inasmuch as he passed the Teachers, Training Examination in 1980 from Primary Teachers education College, Bhagalpur meant for lady candidates. The petitioners case was that although the petitioner took admission in the Teachers Training College for the Sessions 1976-78, but the Examination of training was delayed due to administrative lapses and thus the result of the Training Examination was published in 1980-81, though the petitioner completed her training course in the month of May 1978. The petitioners further case was that on 1st April 1981, an advertisement was published by the respondents for appointment on the post of teachers in the district of Bhagalpur and in the said advertisement different dates of interview were mentioned and there was no upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement for making appointment on the basis of said interview. The petitioners further case was that on 1st April 1981, an advertisement was published by the respondents for appointment on the post of teachers in the district of Bhagalpur and in the said advertisement different dates of interview were mentioned and there was no upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement for making appointment on the basis of said interview. The petitioner applied for her appointment and appeared before the selection Committee constituted for the purpose of selection of teachers on the date fixed and the petitioner was selected for appointment by the Selection Committee. The Committee after scrutinizing all the testimonials of the petitioner and the other certificates and after being satisfied with the performance of petitioner in the interview put the petitioner in the list of successful candidates of the general teachers. The said interview was taken in May 1981, when the age of the petitioner was 35 years and 10 months and the panel was prepared in the month of may 1981 itself. The petitioner got 98th position in the panel prepared by the selection Committee of successful candidates in the District of Bhagalpur for making appointment as assistant teachers. The petitioners further case was that the par. el aforesaid prepared by the Committee in 1981 was sent to the Regional Deputy Director of education for approval and on the basis of 1981 panel, a final panel was prepared in the month of December 1987, after deleting such persons who were either employed in the meantime or were found not fit otherwise and in the panel prepared in the month of december 1987 the petitioner was put at serial No.14 of the general category candidates which panel has been approved upto the level of Regional deputy Director of Education as well as by the District Establishment committee. The petitioners further case was that due to administrative lapses and many stay orders passed by the competent court of law as well as the state Government, the result of 1976-78 sessions of the Training Examination was published after long delay and the examination of training college in different districts were taken too late as a result of which a large number of persons who passed the training course became over age for appointment as assistant teacher which age limit has been fixed by the Department by general Circular issued by the Department. Thus, a large number of students, who passed the training examination in session 1976-78, approached the higher education authorities and the higher education authorities directed the regional Deputy Director of Education concerned that as the Regional Deputy director is the competent authority to relax the age limit of such candidates, so order relaxing the upper age limit should be passed by him, In the similar circumstances, the Director of Primary education issued instructions to the district Superintendent of Education, begusarai, that as the session of the college in question was delayed, so female candidates above the age of 35 years may be allowed to appear in interview. A copy of that letter is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writapplication. The petitioners further case was that as she was already allowed to appear in the interview and she was selected as a successful candidate after scrutiny of all the papers related to her and as the district Establishment Committee approved. the appointment of the petitioner and passed order to make appointment from the select List in which petitioners position was at serial no.14 and as the petitioner with-held no information with regard to her age at the time she appeared in the interview for making apppintment and as the petitioner became sure of her appointment after her placement in the panel which was approved by the District Establishment Committee and the regional Deputy Director of Education, so she became sure of her appointment and she did not apply for her appointment any where even after getting several opportunities. The petitioner alleged that a large number of persons who crossed the age limit of 30 years in the case of male candidate and the age limit of 35 years in the case of female candidate were appointed as assistant teacher in the different districts of the State of Bihar after relaxing their upper age limit and many persons who became over age got appointment in the district in question also because the interview in the district in question was delayed due to administrative lapses of the State government but when the case of petitioner was not considered for her appointment condoning the upper age limit of the petitioner. She filed a writ application being C. W. J. C No.3618 of 1988 claiming therein that the petitioner never withheld any information with regard to her date of birth and she was selected by the Selection committee constituted for the purpose of making appointment and the panel prepared by the Selection Committee was approved by the Deputy Director of Education as well as by the Regional deputy Director of Education, so for all practical purposes, the petitioner was entitled to appointed as assistant teacher. The petitioner also alleged in the aforementioned writ application that the authorities are making pick and choose and are issuing appointment letter applying different standards and more than 250 persons have been appointed from December 1987 till january 1988 from the panel prepared in 1981 in which the position of the petitioner is at serial No.14 as per the approval given in 1987. She further took a point in the earlier writ application that the upper age limit prescribed for a lady candidate is 40 years and even recently advertisement has been made prescribing the upper age limit of lady candidate as 40 years and as in the year 1988, the upper age limit of a lady candidate for making appointment is 40 years, so it was not at all reasonable to say that the upper age limit of the lady candidate in 1981 was kept 35 years. The petitioner also took a point in that writ-application that one Navindra Jha was given appointment letter but subsequently it was cancelled on the ground that he was over age on the date of interview and against the said order said Navindra Jha moved this court in C. W. J. C. No.807 of 1988 which was allowed at the admission stage giving direction to the State authorities to accept his joining. A copy of the said order has been filed and marked Annexure-3 to this writ-application. The petitioner, therefore, made out a case that her case is similar to that of Sri Navindra Jha in all respect, except that Navindra Jha received appointment letter for a few days but in the case of petitioner, the appointment letter was withheld otherwise. A copy of the said order has been filed and marked Annexure-3 to this writ-application. The petitioner, therefore, made out a case that her case is similar to that of Sri Navindra Jha in all respect, except that Navindra Jha received appointment letter for a few days but in the case of petitioner, the appointment letter was withheld otherwise. In the earlier writ application i. e. C. W. J. C. No.3618 of 1988 filed by the petitioner, a counter, affidavit was filed by the State stating intere alia the following statements in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said counter affidavit. "para 14 : That it is stated that the state Government has relaxed the age of female candidates from 35 to 40 years vide Government order. Hence, while preparing the penal for 1988, this relaxation of age has been considered. However, the R. D. O. Bhagalpur after consultation with the Education commissioner, Bihar, has now decided to relax the age of candidates of previous panel who had been denied appointment on that ground. The R. O. D. Bhagalpur vide his letter No.2756-10 dated 17.6.88 has directed the D. S. E. (District Superintendent of education) to submit a list of such candidates for condonation of age so that they can be appointed as teachers. Para 15 : That the name of the petitioner is being submitted to the R. D. D. (Regional Deputy Director), Bhagalpur as per his instruction for approval. After that, it will be put up before the Establishment committee for appointment. " 4. In view of the statements made aforesaid, in the counter-affidavit, the writ application being C. W. J. C. No.3618 of 1988 was disposed of by this court in terms of order dated 5th august 1988, a copy of which is An-nexure-4 to this writ-application. By the said order, this Court allowed permission to the petitioner to withdraw the writ-application in view of the statement made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit. The petitioners further case was that after the aforesaid order dated 5th August, 1988 passed by this Court, the respondent Regional deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur, vide his order dated 6th January, 1989 condoned the upper age limit of the petitioner for her appointment. A copy of the said letter is Annexure-5 to this writ application. The petitioners further case was that after the aforesaid order dated 5th August, 1988 passed by this Court, the respondent Regional deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur, vide his order dated 6th January, 1989 condoned the upper age limit of the petitioner for her appointment. A copy of the said letter is Annexure-5 to this writ application. The petitioner, therefore, stated that after issuance of order aforesaid, the petitioner filed series of representations before the education authorities but in spite of clear understanding given by the respondents, the respondents failed to take appropriate step to place the case of the petitioner before the establishment Committee for appointment of the petitioner, although a large number of persons below in the new list have got appointment. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant writ application for appropriate direction to the respondents who are duty bound to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as the petitioner is otherwise fit for appointment on the post of assistant teacher. The petitioner further alleged that she made complaint to the higher Education authorities and the In-charge deputy Director of Complaint Bureau vide his letter dated 1st August 1989 informed the petitioner that the petitioner can be appointed only after getting order in this regard by the Director level, which is in clear disregard to the order passed in C. W. J. C. No.3618 of 1988, a copy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure-6 to writ application. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-state. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the appointment of teacher is made by the District Education Establishment committee. The District Superintendent of Education being the Secretary of the District Education Establishment committee, merely communicated the decision of the District Establishment committee. It was further stated that the petitioner was over age and such over age is condoned by the competent authority and being the petitioner over age, the appointment letter was not issued to her. It was further stated that when there was no mention of age limit, the Rule prevalent at that time will be applicable. The respondents further case was that the panel was prepared in 1981 and the petitioners age on the date of interview was 35 years and 10 months. It was further stated that when there was no mention of age limit, the Rule prevalent at that time will be applicable. The respondents further case was that the panel was prepared in 1981 and the petitioners age on the date of interview was 35 years and 10 months. The Government Circular was that the candidates must be on the date of interview 30 years in general candidate and 35 years in the case of ladies. The name of such candidates were also included who had crossed the upper age limit when the panel was submitted before the District Education Establishment Committee, Bhagalpur, for approval. The names of candidates who were over age were not approved. However, the name of petitioner could not be deleted due to over sight. It was further stated in the counter-affidavit that after filing the counter-affidavit in c. W. J. C. No.3618 of 1988, the matter was placed in the meeting of the District education Establishment Committee and the Committee decided to refer the matter to the Director. In the mean time, the Additional Commissioner cum special Secretary by letter dated 2nd july 1989 directed to cancel all the panel as per decision given in C. W. J. C. No.5490 of 1986 and C. W. J. C. No.3882 of 1988. Hence, the respondents are not empowered to appoint the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher in the district of Bhagalpur without the order of director for which a reference is being made to the Director. A copy of the order of the Additional Commissioner-cum-special Secretary dated 2nd July, 1988 is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. 6. Before appreciating the case of petitioner, it is necessary to look into the ratio of decision rendered by this court in Anil Kumar V/s. Chief Secretary to the State Government of Bihar and others (C. W. J. C. No.5490/86 ; Reported in 1988 BLJ, 1006 and Bibhuti Sah bhushan and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others. (C. W. J. C. No.3282/88) on the basis of which the respondents took defence that in view of the judgment passed in the aforesaid writ application, the Additional Commissioner-cum-spe-cial Secretary has directed to cancel all the panels. 7. (C. W. J. C. No.3282/88) on the basis of which the respondents took defence that in view of the judgment passed in the aforesaid writ application, the Additional Commissioner-cum-spe-cial Secretary has directed to cancel all the panels. 7. In C. W. J. C. No.5490 of 1986, the petitioner questioned the validity of advertisement issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh for preparation of panel of candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant teachers in Primary Schools ?nd also the order dated 31st January, 1986 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of education, Government of Bihar laying down the requisite qualifications/conditions for being considered for appointment to the aforesaid posts. In the advertisement aforesaid, one of the conditions for eligibility to apply for the posts aforesaid v/as that the applicant must be a trained teacher from the district of Hazaribagh and must have passed Matric or higher Examination from the district of Hazaribagh or his parent must be living in the said district for the last ten years. The petitioner not fulfilling the criteria of the resident of the district had received training from an institution in the district of hazaribagh. But after issuance of the order of Special Secretary dated 31st january, 1986, he was disqualified as he was not a resident of the district of hazaribagh. This court in the judgment considered a question as to whether it was open to the State Government in order to provide employment to the residents of the district of Hazaribagh to put a condition. This Court after relying upon the series of decisions of the supreme Court, held that such a restriction put by the Special Secretary, department of Education, Govt. of bihar, restricting the residents of other districts from being appointed to the post of Assistant teacher held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It was held that the advertisement and the order putting condition regarding being resident of the district of Hazaribagh were quashed. 8. In C. W. J. C. No.3882 of 1988, the fact of the case was that the petitioner and some other persons were appointed as assistant teacher after receiving their appointment letters they submitted their joining reports in the schools in which they were posted. Pursuant to the orders dated 13th September, 1984 and 13th November, 1984, passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. Pursuant to the orders dated 13th September, 1984 and 13th November, 1984, passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, the services of petitiandner and other teachers of Sahebganj district were terminated. The petitioners and others challenged the order of termination and filed several writ applications before this court which were then pending. During the pendency of those writ applications, fresh advertisement was made on 13th march 1987 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as assistant teachers in the Elementary school in the district of Sahebganj. The "secretary of the Teachers Association, sahebganj filed an application before this Court with a prayer to restrain the authority concerned from making selection of candidates for appointment to the post of teacher in the Elementary school, during the pendency of the said writ-applications. A Bench of this court, after considering the said application, passed order on 27th March, 1987 and it was observed that whatever steps are taken by the respondents with regard to the selection of candidates for appointment of teachers, it will be subject to the final result of the writ-application, pending in this Court. It was further observed that if the petitioners further choose to appear at. the interview, they would do so without prejudice to their rights in the pending writ application. The petitioners thereafter appeared before the interview board and were selected for appointment as assistant teacher in the Elementary School, Sahabganj. Accordingly, a list of candidates was prepared who were found suitable for appointment. " Accordingly, as per the list, the respondent No.4 issued appointment letter to 179 candidates. The respondent No.4 of that writ-application further issued a direction that before appointment letters are issued, the candidates who had filed writ-application before this Court against the order of termination of service must withdraw the same and they should file an affidavit to that effect. This Court, relying on the decision of the case of Anil Kumar (supra) disposed of C. W. J. C. No.3882/88 in terms of judgment/order dated 26th September 1988 directing the respondents to comply with the direction given by this Court in a similar case (C. W. J. C. No.634/88 ). The direction was for issuance of appointment letters to those petitioners whose appointment letters were illegally cancelled. 9. The direction was for issuance of appointment letters to those petitioners whose appointment letters were illegally cancelled. 9. From the perusal of the judgment delivered by this Court in the aforementioned writ applications, I am of the firm view that the stand of the respondent State of Bihar in their counter-affidavit was nothing but mala fide. For better appreciation of my view, paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit filed in this case is reproduced here in below: " The statement made in para 27 had been replied above. After filing the counter-affidavit in C. W. J. C. No.3618/88, the matter was placed in the meting of the District Establishment committee and the Committee has decided to refer the matter to the Director. In the meantime, Additional Commis-sioner-cum-Special Secretary has in his letter No.164, dated 2nd July, 1989 directed to cancel all panels as per the direction given in C. W. J. C. No.5490/86 and C. W. J. C. No.3882/88 Hence, the respondents are not empowered to appoint the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher in the district of Bhagalpur without the order of the Director for which a reference is being made to the Director. " 10. From the reading of this paragraph of the counter-affidavit, it appears that the respondent State took a stand that the Additional Commis-sioner-cum-Special Secretary directed to cancel all the panels as per the decisions given in C. W. J. C. No.5490/86 and C. W. J. C. No.3882/88. According to me, in the said two writ-applications, the question of cancellation of panel was neither raised by any of the parties nor this Court gave any direction to cancel all the panels prepared for the purpose of appointment of assistant teachers. 11. Now coming to this case, as stated above, this writ application was dismissed in limine and against the order of dismissal, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court. The supreme Court remitted back the matter to this Court for re-examination of the case in the light of decision of the supreme Court in the case of Babita prasad and others V/s. State of Bihar and others (Supra ). 12. In Babita Prasads ase (supra), that controversy before, the Apex Court was as to the effect of the circular dated 2nd July, 1989 issued by the State of bihar. 12. In Babita Prasads ase (supra), that controversy before, the Apex Court was as to the effect of the circular dated 2nd July, 1989 issued by the State of bihar. The back ground of the case was that in the State of Bihar, appointment of teachers of Primary Schools were being made since 1970 on the basis of residence of candidates in a particular district. Advertisements were issued in different districts inviting applications from the residents of the districts having requisite qualification for appointment as assistant teacher in the primary schools within the jurisdiction of the District Superintendent of education. Appointments were made from the panel district wise. When the conditions fixed for appointment on the basis of residents of a district was challenged before this Court in Anil kumar V/s. Chief Secretary. [1987 PLJR 846 : 1988 BLJ 1006 1, a Bench of this court declared the panel prepared on the basis of residents in a particular district as unconstitutional. By the said judgment, this Court however directed that the appointments already made from those panels should not be disturbed but the State was restrained from making any further appointment from the panels prepared from the different districts. Pursuant tq that judgment, the State Government issued directions of stay of further appointments from the panel prepared on district wise basis on March 1,1989 and subsequently a Circular dated 2nd July 1989 was issued giving further instruction regarding appointment of primary teachers. According to that, the panel of candidates which had been prepared on the basis of inhabitant of the district was treated as rejected. However, the candidates who had abeady been appointed from that panel were allowed to continue. As the consequence of the aforesaid letter dated 2nd July 1989, the Collector and the Deputy Commissioner made no further appointment of assistant teachers in the Primary School from the existing panels. Aggrieved parties who were not appointed, filed various writ applications in this Court which were disposed of by different judgments and against those judgments, civil Appeals were filed in the supreme Court. Their Lordships took notice of the fact that the judgment in anil Kumar case (supra) was not challenged in any higher forum, it therefore, acquired finality. The State government issued Circular dated 2nd july 1989 as a follow up action of Anil kumars judgment. Their Lordships took notice of the fact that the judgment in anil Kumar case (supra) was not challenged in any higher forum, it therefore, acquired finality. The State government issued Circular dated 2nd july 1989 as a follow up action of Anil kumars judgment. Their Lordships while dealing with the effect of panel, observed as under: "we find force in the submission of mr. Sibal that the purpose of the panel prepared in the instant case was only to finalise a list of eligible candidates for appointment. The panel in the instant case was too long and was intended to last indefinitely barring the future generations for decades from being considered in the vacancies arising much later. In fact the future generations would have been kept out for a very long period had the panel been permitted to remain effective till exhausted. A panel of the type prepared in the present case cannot be equated with a panel which is prepared having co-relation to the existing vacancies or anticipated vacancies arising in the near future and for a fixed time and prepared as a result of some selection process. As is apparent, the names of some of the teachers in the panel have existed for more than 16 years. A panel of this nature, in our opinion, cannot be treated as conferring any vested or indefeasable right to the teachers to be appointed as laid down by the Constitution Bench in shankarsan Das case. " Their Lordships in the said judgment, further held, "the mere fact that the candidates who had been brought on the panel had been sent for training at the Government expense, would also not imply that any indefeasable right had been created in their favour for appointment after they had completed their training and their names were entered In the panel because the training was merely intended to confer eligibility on the candidates for being brought on the list. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, hold that the panel prepared in the present case was only in the nature of and eligibility list of qualified trained teachers arranged according to their merit in a chronological order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, hold that the panel prepared in the present case was only in the nature of and eligibility list of qualified trained teachers arranged according to their merit in a chronological order. It had been prepared without any process of selection whatsoever as none who was a trained qualified teacher was excluded from being brought on the list The list was neither related to existing vacancies nor to anticipated vacancies. Such a panel did not create any vested or indefeasable right on the empanel lists to be appointed. " Their Lordships in the judgment further lays down the principles as to under what circumstances, the action of the State will amount to violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is quoted hereinbelow : para 30 : In our opinion, there is force in the submission of Mr. Sibal that some equities had come into existence in favour of the appointees and since the judgment in Anil Kumar case itself had protected the appointment of those teachers out of the panel who had been appointed but were not before the Court, it was a fair exercise of discretion on the part of the Government not to oust those who had been appointed and were serv ing. " "para 31 : The non-interference with the appointment of teachers from the panel who stood already appointed cannot, in our opinion, form the basis of the article 14 argument. The fundamental right of equality implies that persons in like situations, under like circumstances, are entitled to be treated alive. Reasonable classification according to some principle to recognise intelligible inequalities or to avoid or correct inequalities is permissible. It is in this background that we must divert our attention to the charge of violation of article 14. Indeed, if the action of the State can be shown to be arbitrary, then notwithstanding any qualification it would offend article 14 and be liable to be struck down. Those who had been appointed out of the panel as and when the vacancies arose and had continued in service did acquire some right to so continue and the action of the State Government in protecting their services cannot be said to infringe Article 14, which even though all pervasive, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. The appointed and the non-appointed teachers formed separate and distinct classes. In saving the appointment of those who stood already appointed and were serving, there was no arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the respon-dents. It inneed, is nobodys case that the decision taken by the State was actuated by any motive on the scrapping of the panel after July 2, 1989, was mala fide. Even otherwise, when the State decided to respect the equities which have arisen in favour of the teachers already appointed and serving, no fault can be found with it. Equity reforms and moderates the rigour and hardness of the law and the state acted fairly and bona fide to respect and balance the equities in favour of theappointed candidates. We must, therefore, reject the charge of arbitrariness in view of the peculiar facts of this case more particularly since we have already found that the persons on the panel had not acquired any indivisible right to appointment merely by being placed in the panel. It also deserves to be noted here that the appellants had not questioned, as it is, the validity -of appointment of the teachers, already appointed, but have-on the other hand sought treatment similar to the one of the appointed teachers. The decision to save the appointment of the teachers already appointed, who form a distinct and separate class, is, therefore, fair and reasonable and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. It does not in any way offend. Article 14. This view also accords with the judgment in Subash chandra Marwaha case and the law laid down -by the Constitution Bench in shankarsan Das. We must, therefore, reject the argument of discrimination between the two classes of teachers, namely, those who stood appointed and the others who were waiting be appointed and in whose favour ro indefeasible right accrued, only by being brought on the panel, to be appointed. " 13. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, I re-examined the case of the petitioner in the instant case and found that the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of the judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar case (supra ). 14. From the facts of this case it is undisputed that the appointment of the petitioner was not denied on the ground that the panel was prepared district wise. 14. From the facts of this case it is undisputed that the appointment of the petitioner was not denied on the ground that the panel was prepared district wise. As stated above, the petitioners appointment was denied on the ground that the petitioner crossed her age limit 1981. It was not disputed by the respondents that the age limit for appointment of a lady teacher was enhanced to 40 years. It was also not disputed that although she was selected in 1981, after interview and a panel was prepared but the said panel was approved in 1987 where her position was at serial No.14. When the petitioner was not appointed although other candidates of 1987 panel were appointed, the petitioner moved this Court by filing C. W. J. C. No.3618 of 1988 for a direction to the respondents to appoint her as an assistant teacher on the ground that the respondents were making pick and choose and were issuing appointment letters applying different standard and more than 250 persons were appointed from December 1987 to January 1988 from the said panel. 15. A counter-affidavit was filed in the aforesaid writ-application wherein the respondent State admitted that the state Government relaxed the age limit of female candidates from 35 to 40 years. It was specifically stated in the said counter-affidavit in para 15 quoted above, that the case of petitioner was submitted to Regional Deputy Director, Bhagalpur, for approval and it will then be put up before the Establishment committee for her appointment. On this statement made by the respondents, the earlier writ application was permitted to be withdrawn. Thereafter the respondent Regional deputy Director, Bhagalpur, vide his. order dated 6th January, 1989 condoned the upper age limit of the petitioner for her appointment. A copy of that letter has been brought on record marked as Annexure 5. Even thereafter the petitioner was not appointed and no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. 16. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that, notwith standing the law that a candidate does not require indefeasible right merely because he or she is included in the panel, in the instant case, the petitioner certainly acquired indefeasible right because of the fact that more than 250 candidates below her were appointed and she was denied appointment without any legal ground. Not only that when she filed the earlier writ application, the respondent State instead of disputing the right of the petitioner to be appointed filed an affidavit stating that because of the relaxation of age, her case was to be recommended and shall be sent to the District Establishment Committee for appointment. Curiously enough, in the instant case, the respondents flatly denied her appointment on the basis of the judgment of Anil Kumar case which was not at all applicable in this case. I further noticed that because of the arbitrary and whimsical action of the respondent State, the petitioner was denied appointment in 1987-88. Had she been appointed in 1987-88, then more than 250 candidates appointed, she would have been in service for about eight years. In this way, she has not only suffered monetary loss for about eight years but also remained constantly under mental shock and agony. I am, therefore, of the opinon that besides a relief for appointment, the petitioner is also entitled to compensation to a reasonable amount. 17. In the result, this writ application is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the concerned respondents directing them to make appointment of the petitioner forthwith and not later than one month from to-day. The respondent State is also liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the petitioner besides compensatory cost of litigation which is calculated at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand ). Petition Allowed.